I have this for loop that searches a list for specific values and replaces them with new ones.
for (int i = 0; i < Data.Count; i++) {
if (Data[i] > 0 && Data[i] <= 10) {Data[i] = 1;}
else if (Data[i] > 10 && Data[i] < 20) {Data[i] = 2;}
...
}
I've been trying to write this function in linq and I know it can be written this way:
var Data2 = Data.Where(x=> x > 0 && x <= 10).Select(y=> y=1).ToList();
My question is that is there any way to convert this for loop into linq form without the need to declare new lists? I mean a linq form which searches for these values inside the list and when it finds them it replaces them accordingly.
I would suggest against doing this with LINQ, anyway:
Enumerable.Range(0,Data.Count)
.ForEach(x=>{
if (Data[x] > 0 && Data[x] <= 10) {Data[x] = 1;}
else if (Data[x] > 10 && Data[i] < 20) {Data[x] = 2;}
});
this way you don't have to declare a second list, but the code looks less readeable than your original one.
The exact equivalent would be:
Data
.Select((e,i) => new { Element = e, Index = i })
.Where(ei => ei.Element > 0 && ei.Element < 20)
.ToList()
.ForEach(ei => Data[ei.Index] = (ei.Element <= 10) ? 1 : 2);
or second possibility: look at Save's answer.
However it's still creating a List in-between (ForEach comes only for List<T>). It's not very readable, better to use non-mutable approach and just generate new list basing on given criteria.
A lot simpler than the other solutions:
Data = Data.Select(d => (d / 10) + 1)
If you want a top limit, just use Math.Min((d / 10) + 1, topLimit) instead.
Modifying data in-place is not Linq's strength. Linq methods generally are side-effects free. That is why the .ForEach() method is not a Linq method and is only defined for lists.
However there is nothing preventing you from making Linq functions with side-effects.
So I would not recommend this solution, but you can do anything within a select statement, even modifying the underlying list. There is also a select overload that uses the element and its index as parameters ( Select( (element,index) => ... ).
So you can do anything with select you can do in a for loop. But I would recommend the for loop for readability.
data.Select((d,i)=>
{if (d > 0 && d <= 10) data[i]=1 else if (d>10 && d<20 data[i]=2;})
.All(d=>true); // <-- note that you do need some way to consume the IEnumerable
// in order to execute the .Select(). You can use ToList(), Count(), ..
Related
I got the code that compare current element with the next element in array. But it crashes with out of bound because I guess when its on the last element there is no next element to compare with so it crashes.How to handle this to avoid crash and stop comparing on the last element? Here is my code
fun myFunction(arr: Array<Int>): Int{
if (arr.isEmpty()) return 0
var result = 0
for (item in arr.indices) {
if (arr[item] > 0 && arr[item + 1] < 0){
result ++
}
if (arr[item] < 0 && arr[item + 1] > 0){
result ++
}
}
return result
}
The direct answer to your question:
Instead of
for (item in arr.indices)
you should write
for (item in 0..(arr.lastIndex - 1))
Explanation: arr.indices returns the range 0..arr.lastIndex but in the loop you are checking the element after the current index; therefore you should only go up to arr.lastIndex - 1.
Some further advice:
IntArray is more efficient than Array<Int>
You can combine the two if statements into one using the || (or) operator.
If you are counting the number of sign changes, you need to consider how to interpret 0. In your code, an input of [1,-1] would give a result of 1 sign change, but [1,0,-1] would give 0, which seems wrong. To fix that, treat 0 as positive:
if ((arr[item] >= 0 && arr[item + 1] < 0) || arr[item] < 0 && arr[item + 1] >= 0) {
result++
}
You don't need to check if the array is empty; just remove that line. The loop won't be entered if the array is empty or if it has only 1 element.
Finally, you can use some cool features of the standard libray (look them up in the documentation to learn them) which can make your function succinct:
fun myFunction(arr: IntArray): Int {
var result = 0
arr.asList().zipWithNext().forEach { (a, b) ->
if ((a >= 0 && b < 0) || (a < 0 && b >= 0))
result++
}
return result
}
and even more succinct still:
fun myFunction(arr: IntArray) =
arr.asList().zipWithNext().count { (a, b) -> (a >= 0) != (b >= 0) }
References: single-expression functions, zipWithNext, count, destructuring.
Got asked this question in an interview and couldn't find a solution.
Given an array of characters delete all the characters that got repeated k or more times consecutively and add '#' in the end of the array for every deleted character.
Example:
"xavvvarrrt"->"xaat######"
O(1) memory and O(n) time without writing to the same cell twice.
The tricky part for me was that I am not allowed to overwrite a cell more than once, which means I need to know exactly where each character will move after deleting the duplicates.
The best I could come up with is iterating once on the array and saving in a map the occurrences of each character, and when iterating again and checking if the current character is not deleted then move it to the new position according to the offset, if it is deleted then update an offset variable.
The problem with this approach is that it won't work in this scenario:
"aabbaa" because 'a' appears at two different places.
So when I thought about saving an array of occurrences in the map but now it won't use O(1) memory.
Thanks
This seems to work with your examples, although it seems a little complicated to me :) I wonder if we could simplify it. The basic idea is to traverse from left to right, keeping a record of how many places in the current block of duplicates are still available to replace, while the right pointer looks for more blocks to shift over.
JavaScript code:
function f(str){
str = str.split('')
let r = 1
let l = 0
let to_fill = 0
let count = 1
let fill = function(){
while (count > 0 && (to_fill > 0 || l < r)){
str[l] = str[r - count]
l++
count--
to_fill--
}
}
for (; r<str.length; r++){
if (str[r] == str[r-1]){
count++
} else if (count < 3){
if (to_fill)
fill()
count = 1
if (!to_fill)
l = r
} else if (!to_fill){
to_fill = count
count = 1
} else {
count = 1
}
}
if (count < 3)
fill()
while (l < str.length)
str[l++] = '#'
return str.join('')
}
var str = "aayyyycbbbee"
console.log(str)
console.log(f(str)) // "aacee#######"
str = "xavvvarrrt"
console.log(str)
console.log(f(str)) // "xaat######"
str = "xxaavvvaarrrbbsssgggtt"
console.log(str)
console.log(f(str))
Here is a version similar to the other JS answer, but a bit simpler:
function repl(str) {
str = str.split("");
var count = 1, write = 0;
for (var read = 0; read < str.length; read++) {
if (str[read] == str[read+1])
count++;
else {
if (count < 3) {
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++)
str[write++] = str[read];
}
count = 1;
}
}
while (write < str.length)
str[write++] = '#';
return str.join("");
}
function demo(str) {
console.log(str + " ==> " + repl(str));
}
demo("a");
demo("aa");
demo("aaa");
demo("aaaaaaa");
demo("aayyyycbbbee");
demo("xavvvarrrt");
demo("xxxaaaaxxxaaa");
demo("xxaavvvaarrrbbsssgggtt");
/*
Output:
a ==> a
aa ==> aa
aaa ==> ###
aaaaaaa ==> #######
aayyyycbbbee ==> aacee#######
xavvvarrrt ==> xaat######
xxxaaaaxxxaaa ==> #############
xxaavvvaarrrbbsssgggtt ==> xxaaaabbtt############
*/
The idea is to keep the current index for reading the next character and one for writing, as well as the number of consecutive repeated characters. If the following character is equal to the current, we just increase the counter. Otherwise we copy all characters below a count of 3, increasing the write index appropriately.
At the end of reading, anything from the current write index up to the end of the array is the number of repeated characters we have skipped. We just fill that with hashes now.
As we only store 3 values, memory consumption is O(1); we read each array cell twice, so O(n) time (the extra reads on writing could be eliminated by another variable); and each write index is accessed exactly once.
I came across this question, where the OP wanted to improve the following if-block. I open this as a new question because I'm searching a more general solution to this kind of problem.
public int fightMath(int one, int two) {
if(one == 0 && two == 0) { result = 0; }
else if(one == 0 && two == 1) { result = 0; }
else if(one == 0 && two == 2) { result = 1; }
else if(one == 0 && two == 3) { result = 2; }
else if(one == 1 && two == 0) { result = 0; }
else if(one == 1 && two == 1) { result = 0; }
else if(one == 1 && two == 2) { result = 2; }
else if(one == 1 && two == 3) { result = 1; }
else if(one == 2 && two == 0) { result = 2; }
else if(one == 2 && two == 1) { result = 1; }
else if(one == 2 && two == 2) { result = 3; }
else if(one == 2 && two == 3) { result = 3; }
else if(one == 3 && two == 0) { result = 2; }
else if(one == 3 && two == 1) { result = 1; }
else if(one == 3 && two == 2) { result = 3; }
else if(one == 3 && two == 3) { result = 3; }
return result;
}
Now there are n^k possibilities to get a result, where n = 2 and k = 4.
Some answers are suggesting to use an multi-array as a table to reduce the if-jungle.
But I would like to know how to solve such a problem with big n and k? Because a solution with if, switch and the suggested array approach will not scale well and to type things like that in code should be avoided.
If I think about combinatoric problems, there have to be a way to evaluate them easy.
It's just a table of data. The answer to the question is found by multiple keys. It is no different to returning some data held in a database table which could itself be huge and perhaps span multiple tables.
There are two ways to solve this:
Data-based. For example you could create a HashMap mapping the pair of values to the result.
class Pair {
int one, two;
//Generate hashcode and equals
}
Map<Pair, Integer> counts = new HashMap<>();
Pattern-based. Identify a rule/formula that can be used to determine the new value.
This is obviously better but relies on being able to identify a rule that covers all cases.
I would like to know how to solve such a problem with big n and k.
Since the output is determined arbitrarily (a game designer's whims) instead of mathematically (a formula), there's no guarantee of any pattern. Therefore the only general solution is some kind of lookup table.
Essentially, the question is similar to asking for a program that does f(a,b) -> c mapping, but you don't know any of the data beforehand -- instead it's provided at runtime. That program could process the data and find a pattern/formula (which might not exist) or it could build a lookup table.
Personally, I think it's clearer to change the logic to operate on intent (so reading the code explains how the attack works) instead of the actual outcomes (enumerating the list of inputs and matching outputs). Instead of building an if-jungle or a lookup table, structure your code based on how you want the logic to work. JAB's enum-based solution expresses the fight logic explicitly which makes it easier to see where to add new functionality and easier to see bugs (an off by one error in a lookup table isn't obviously wrong on inspection). A lookup table is a likely optimization, but that's only necessary if a profiler says so.
Looking at your question and the original one there appears to be no deducible pattern between the input from the two players and the output (perhaps I'm wrong). Given this the only options are the "if-jungle" you mention or to use a data structure.
To solve such a problem for big n and k values my suggestion would be to create a rule to determine the output (either none, one or both players hit), but ensuring that this rule isn't easily deducible to the players. You could do this by making the rule a function of turn number (e.g. if both players press button 1 on turn #1 the output will be different to if they take the same action on turn #2).
I have a collection
List<int> periods = new List<int>();
periods.Add(0);
periods.Add(30);
periods.Add(60);
periods.Add(90);
periods.Add(120);
periods.Add(180);
var overDueDays = 31;
I have a variable over due days. When the vale is between 0 to 29 then I want to return the index of 0. When between 30 - 59 I want to return index 1. The periods list is from db so its not hard coded and values can be different from what are here. What is the best way to to it using LINQ in one statement.
It's not really what Linq is designed for, but (assuming that the range is not fixed) you could do the following to get the index
List<int> periods = new List<int>();
periods.Add(0);
periods.Add(30);
periods.Add(60);
periods.Add(90);
periods.Add(120);
periods.Add(180);
var overDueDays = 31;
var result = periods.IndexOf(periods.First(n => overDueDays < n)) - 1;
You can use .TakeWhile():
int periodIndex = periods.TakeWhile(p => p <= overDueDays).Count() - 1;
how about this ?
var qPeriods = periods.Where(v => v <= overDueDays)
.Select((result, i) => new { index = i })
.Last();
Assuming that periods is sorted, you can use the following approach:
var result = periods.Skip(1)
.Select((o, i) => new { Index = i, Value = o })
.FirstOrDefault(o => overDueDays < o.Value);
if (result != null)
{
Console.WriteLine(result.Index);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Matching range not found!");
}
The first value is skipped since we're interested in comparing with the upper value of the range. By skipping it, the indices fall into place without the need to subtract 1. FirstOrDefault is used in case overDueDays doesn't fall between any of the available ranges.
The problem involves the Scala PriorityQueue[Array[Int]] performance on large data set. The following operations are needed: enqueue, dequeue, and filter. Currently, my implementation is as follows:
For every element of type Array[Int], there is a complex evaluation function: (I'm not sure how to write it in a more efficient way, because it excludes the position 0)
def eval_fun(a : Array[Int]) =
if(a.size < 2) 3
else {
var ret = 0
var i = 1
while(i < a.size) {
if((a(i) & 0x3) == 1) ret += 1
else if((a(i) & 0x3) == 3) ret += 3
i += 1
}
ret / a.size
}
The ordering with a comparison function is based on the evaluation function: (Reversed, descendent order)
val arr_ord = new Ordering[Array[Int]] {
def compare(a : Array[Int], b : Array[Int]) = eval_fun(b) compare eval_fun(a) }
The PriorityQueue is defined as:
val pq: scala.collection.mutable.PriorityQueue[Array[Int]] = PriorityQueue()
Question:
Is there a more elegant and efficient way to write such a evaluation function? I'm thinking of using fold, but fold cannot exclude the position 0.
Is there a data structure to generate a priorityqueue with unique elements? Applying filter operation after each enqueue operation is not efficient.
Is there a cache method to reduce the evaluation computation? Since when adding a new element to the queue, every element may need to be evaluated by eval_fun again, which is not necessary if evaluated value of every element can be cached. Also, I should mention that two distinct element may have the same evaluated value.
Is there a more efficient data structure without using generic type? Because if the size of elements reaches 10,000 and the size of size reaches 1,000, the performance is terribly slow.
Thanks you.
(1) If you want maximum performance here, I would stick to the while loop, even if it is not terribly elegant. Otherwise, if you use a view on Array, you can easily drop the first element before going into the fold:
a.view.drop(1).foldLeft(0)( (sum, a) => sum + ((a & 0x03) match {
case 0x01 => 1
case 0x03 => 3
case _ => 0
})) / a.size
(2) You can maintain two structures, the priority queue, and a set. Both combined give you a sorted-set... So you could use collection.immutable.SortedSet, but there is no mutable variant in the standard library. Do want equality based on the priority function, or the actual array contents? Because in the latter case, you won't get around comparing arrays element by element for each insertion, undoing the effect of caching the priority function value.
(3) Just put the calculated priority along with the array in the queue. I.e.
implicit val ord = Ordering.by[(Int, Array[Int]), Int](_._1)
val pq = new collection.mutable.PriorityQueue[(Int, Array[Int])]
pq += eval_fun(a) -> a
Well, you can use a tail recursive loop (generally these are more "idiomatic":
def eval(a: Array[Int]): Int =
if (a.size < 2) 3
else {
#annotation.tailrec
def loop(ret: Int = 0, i: Int = 1): Int =
if (i >= a.size) ret / a.size
else {
val mod3 = (a(i) & 0x3)
if (mod3 == 1) loop(ret + 1, i + 1)
else if (mod3 == 3) loop(ret + 3, i + 1)
else loop(ret, i + 1)
}
loop()
}
Then you can use that to initialise a cached priority value:
case class PriorityArray(a: Array[Int]) {
lazy val priority = if (a.size < 2) 3 else {
#annotation.tailrec
def loop(ret: Int = 0, i: Int = 1): Int =
if (i >= a.size) ret / a.size
else {
val mod3 = (a(i) & 0x3)
if (mod3 == 2) loop(ret, i + 1)
else loop(ret + mod3, i + 1)
}
loop()
}
}
You may note also that I removed a redundant & op and have only the single conditional (for when it equals 2, rather than two checks for 1 && 3) – these should have some minimal effect.
There is not a huge difference from 0__'s proposal that just came though.
My answers:
If evaluation is critical, keep it as it is. You might get better performance with recursion (not sure why, but it happens), but you'll certainly get worse performance with pretty much any other approach.
No, there isn't, but you can come pretty close to it just modifying the dequeue operation:
def distinctDequeue[T](q: PriorityQueue[T]): T = {
val result = q.dequeue
while (q.head == result) q.dequeue
result
}
Otherwise, you'd have to keep a second data structure just to keep track of whether an element has been added or not. Either way, that equals sign is pretty heavy, but I have a suggestion to make it faster in the next item.
Note, however, that this requires that ties on the the cost function get solved in some other way.
Like 0__ suggested, put the cost on the priority queue. But you can also keep a cache on the function if that would be helpful. I'd try something like this:
val evalMap = scala.collection.mutable.HashMapWrappedArray[Int], Int
def eval_fun(a : Array[Int]) =
if(a.size < 2) 3
else evalMap.getOrElseUpdate(a, {
var ret = 0
var i = 1
while(i < a.size) {
if((a(i) & 0x3) == 1) ret += 1
else if((a(i) & 0x3) == 3) ret += 3
i += 1
}
ret / a.size
})
import scala.math.Ordering.Implicits._
val pq = new collection.mutable.PriorityQueue[(Int, WrappedArray[Int])]
pq += eval_fun(a) -> (a : WrappedArray[Int])
Note that I did not create a special Ordering -- I'm using the standard Ordering so that the WrappedArray will break the ties. There's little cost to wrap the Array, and you get it back with .array, but, on the other hand, you'll get the following:
Ties will be broken by comparing the array themselves. If there aren't many ties in the cost, this should be good enough. If there are, add something else to the tuple to help break ties without comparing the arrays.
That means all equal elements will be kept together, which will enable you to dequeue all of them at the same time, giving the impression of having kept only one.
And that equals will actually work, because WrappedArray compare like Scala sequences do.
I don't understand what you mean by that fourth point.